Se^ York Stock Excliange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Eliyalw Stoimwi and Miriam Sleinwn v, PaineWebber Inc and Anir Roeenlhal Attorneys: For aainMnl(4: Eliyahu and Mviam Sieiman -. For Pipondanl^): Joseph F. GenereH Esq. - Weehewkan, NJ Date Fiied: io«5«4 First Scheduled: Case Summary: Ctainwms, pubic customers, alege respondenlB. a and churning witti rasped to dalmams' aocoun. Product: Decided: ^ /

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between / NYSE Case: Elnersen & Company, Inc. v RPM Spectalist Corp. Attorneys: For Claimant(s): Michael Einersen For Respondent(s): George Brundie Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 09/30/94 First Scheduled: 3-14-95 Oecided: 12/21/95 Case Summary: Claimant alleges that Ihe respondent was ading in viotation of Exchange Rules 104 & 116 in stopping orders in order to "size out*

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Gruntel & Company vs. Cart Ntoola Attorneys: f=or Ctaimant(s): Donato N. Cohen Esq. - New York, NY For Respondent(s): Cari Ntooto - New York. NY Date Filed: 09/29/94 First Scheduled: 02/O6/95 Oecided: 06/01/95 Case Summary: Member Firm vs. Registered Rep (ex-emptoyee) seeking contribution against Respondent, ttie alleged wrongdoer, for an NASD arbitration award a

11/09/2004 09:21 FAX HASD , 1002/002 STIPULATED AWARD NASD Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Name of Claimant James Goldstein and Case Number. 01-04538; Hearing Site: Chicago, IL Names of Respondents Prudential Securities, Inc., and Jack Newman _ __ _ _ : fJATURE OF CASE Customer v. Member and Associated Person REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES James Goldstein ("Claimant") was represented by Paul J, Sussman,

y New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Barry Skolntok v. Gruntal & Company Incorporated Attorneys:.. (^ Clainianl(s): Robert L. Rotmil Esq. - New York, NY Fbr Respondent(s): Eric Hutiier Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 09/24/94 First Scheduled: 04/05/95 Decided: 05A)8/95 Case Summary: Claimant, a publto customer, alleges Respondent, a member firm, failed to contad him in breach of its ftoudary duty,

New York Stock Exchange ^n the Matter of Arbitration Between y NYSE Case: Betty S. AHen vs. Prudenttol Securities, Inc. Attorneys: For Clainanl(s): N. James Tumer Esq. - Oriando, FL For nespondBrt(^: Robert H. Logan Esq. - Long Beach, CA Date Filed: 09/27/94 First Scheduled: 04/04/95 Decided: 07/ia/95 Case Summary: Registered Rep vs. Member Firm (ex-emptoyer) altoging fraud and deodt, negligenoe and breech of fidudary duty to Clainwn

y New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Merrlll Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. vs. Eric A. Soils and Greg R. Soils Attorneys: For Ctaimant(s): Christopher P. Stief Esq. - Paoli, PA Fbr Respondent(s): H. Thomas Fehn Esq. - Los /Angeles, CA Date Filed: 09/13/94 First Scheduled: 02/21/95 Oecided: 12/07/95 Case Summary: Member Firm vs. Registered Reps alleging breach of promissory notes signed by resp

y New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Westchester Jewish Canter v Gruntal & Co. Incorporated Attorneys: For Clainwnt(s): Oantol J. Brooks Esq. New York, NY For ResponderKs): Roben M. Abrahams Esq. - New York, |ylY Harry 0. Frisch Esq. - New York, NY Date Filed: 09/02/94 First Sclieduled: 03/16/95 Oecided: 06/28/95 Case Summary; Ctaimant altoges Respondent faited to disck>se ttie nature of t

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Connto J. Bolin and Connto J. Bolin, Custodian v McDonald & Company Securities and Owen Rueckel Attorneys :.- For Ctainwnt(s): William C. Heer Esq. - Columbus, OH Fbr Respondent(s): Henry V. Kerr Esq. - Clevdand, OH Date Filed: 09/22/94 First Sctieduled: 03/28/95 Decided: 03/31/95 Case Summary: Claimants allege that the respondents induced them to invest in ttie Amer

New York Stock Exchange In the Matter of Arbitration Between NYSE Case: Jack Cohen v Mernll Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smltti Incorporated Attorneys: For Qaimaiit(^ Jack Cohen - Rushing, NY For Respondent(s): James S. Gross Esq. - New York, NY Date Fiied: 09/09/94 Case Summary: Customer alleges the firm First Scheduled: 02/23/95 Decided: 04/18/95 misrepresented the yield and the sales charges on the MFS Lifetime Intermediate Income